GetInTheTruck
Member
Wow you guys really want to bump this thread and regurgitate this nonsense huh 
Is this true that the Buddha was black?
- Thread starter observe
- Start date
it's only nonsense when it goes against your beliefs(not you personally) but beliefs shouldn't be part of your foundation of thought, KNOWING should be, unless you are on the journey to find the knowledge of truth. It is belief that gives ideas to form the foundation of knowing. This is why beliefs always change, but the knowledge never does, it just gets added onto.Wow you guys really want to bump this thread and regurgitate this nonsense huh
I see nothing wrong with questioning something that obviously doesn't make sense. Yeah, India played a part in the knowledge given to the Buddha, but where was this knowledge from, and this person from who mastered the knowledge. You can't just go by what's told now, because money, and power, is involved, so the truth will not be the truth, just what feels good to pacify the masses, as you need them to stay in power! We both know that families were at war with each other, so there is a chance in the thousands of years, the knowledge was changed to fit the needs of whoever was in power. We have the truth be mistold in recent times, so you know this would happen from thousands of years ago. You should never be mad at people for wanting to find the truth in the real world, and not just scriptures.
Last edited:
GetInTheTruck
Member
Buddhism came from the sramana movements in ancient india, just like Jainism. If you never heard of that term look it up. Their concepts involved renunciation and asceticism.
Mr. Guatama was born into a kshatriya family. He was exposed to vedic learning from a young age, which means he was for all intents and purposes ethnically aryan, if you dont want to consider him indian which doesnt really matter to me. The liturgical language of buddhism has always been sanskrit, an "indian" language. This is not up for debate. What you need to do is let go of these silly fantasies and join those of us over here in reality.
You just gave me basic knowledge, which is why things never change. We know this because the Buddha learned the middle was the right path, not the extreme, but that is not the point I was making. My point was where did ALL of this originate. You are explaining to me the after effect, not the origin.
Now, tell me if this "self denying" came from vedic religion, where did this vedic religion come from?
Was the Buddha a reincarnated body?
Of course the language is Indian, because that is who is being taught, that has nothing to do with the KNOWLEDGE! This is my point, the origins of everything.
Also, you are giving me what the scriptures say, but I already explained to you why you must take this with a grain of salt. I said this years ago, but you keep doing it.
And you seem to forget that the story may not be literal, but a hidden meaning, which it most likely is.
Last edited:
GetInTheTruck
Member
Where did all of what originate?
If you mean the knowledge then I just told you. The vedic religion comes from the vedas, duh. And vedic religion does not deny the self, buddhism does, thats why its considered to be an unvedic philosophy even though buddhism and tbe vedic religion share cultural roots.
And this is why I always go back, and forth with you, you seem to not understand things for some reason. I think its because you have your mind made up already, and look for what you can argue down.
I asked where did the vedic religion come from. You tell me it came from the vedas
that's like asking a christian where does christianty comes from, and they say the Bible
I want to know where did the KNOWLEDGE come from?!
And you just showed you want to argue to be right, because you just admitted that both buddhism, and vedic religion share roots, this is why I said "self denying" came from the vedic religion. In other words it has its ROOTS in it! In simple terms, some people took the teachings to mean what they wanted, and thought this was the way to enlightenment. We saw through the Buddha that these weren't proper ways, and he gave an alternative. To me that is the whole reason for the story, which I feel he wasn't real, BUT his knowledge was very real, and it had origins, but I think it has been perverted as the people who had power changed the truth of this knowledge. And it can be seen from the beginning when we are told the was born into wealth, and so was taught the vedas, but obviously this teaching wasn't good enough for him. This is why I'm asking you where did this veda knowledge come from.
I think the people who were his followers, and knew the truth, showed this knowledge in hidden form with his statues. In other words the real knowledge comes from a different place, or is a mix of teachings. The ignorant just see a picture, but the knowing see something else. I know its hard for you to admit this because you are Indian, and probably in the religion or connected to it, since a child, but from what I see, its not as simple as you are making it.
Last edited:
It doesn't really matter that the aryans were the ones who happened to bring vedic knowledge to india. There's a strong case the was a rapid rise in sea levels at the end of the last ice age. There are also too many significant similarities between cultures spread around the globe from this time to dismiss as coincidence. What modern anthropologists refer to as orginis of civilizations started off with knowledge of the precession, something that takes two+ millennia to observe, then they all slowly deteriorated. That came from previous civilizations that were seemingly spread around the globe with a similar knowledge base. It came from enlightened people, that's the path to tread in real time, not squabble about.
Last edited:
GetInTheTruck
Member
And this is why I always go back, and forth with you, you seem to not understand things for some reason. I think its because you have your mind made up already, and look for what you can argue down.
I asked where did the vedic religion come from. You tell me it came from the vedas
that's like asking a christian where does christianty comes from, and they say the Bible
I want to know where did the KNOWLEDGE come from?!
And you just showed you want to argue to be right, because you just admitted that both buddhism, and vedic religion share roots, this is why I said "self denying" came from the vedic religion. In other words it has its ROOTS in it! In simple terms, some people took the teachings to mean what they wanted, and thought this was the way to enlightenment. We saw through the Buddha that these weren't proper ways, and he gave an alternative. To me that is the whole reason for the story, which I feel he wasn't real, BUT his knowledge was very real, and it had origins, but I think it has been perverted as the people who had power changed the truth of this knowledge. And it can be seen from the beginning when we are told the was born into wealth, and so was taught the vedas, but obviously this teaching wasn't good enough for him. This is why I'm asking you where did this veda knowledge come from.
I think the people who were his followers, and knew the truth, showed this knowledge in hidden form with his statues. In other words the real knowledge comes from a different place, or is a mixed of teachings. The ignorant just see a picture, but the knowing see something else. I know its hard for you to admit this because you are Indina, and probably in the religion or connected to it, since a child, but from what I see, its not as simple as you are making it.
???
If the vedic religon didnt come crom the vedas then where did it come from?
The vedas themselves are seen as uncreated, the knowledge contained in them has always existed, it has no origin. Just like gravity always existed. Academically, they have their origin among the indo aryan clans and tribes, and the buddha was a descendant of these people.
Now, "getinthetruck", you are not a dumb man, you mean to tell me you don't see the trick that is being played?
So, the knowledge has no origins, yet the people who are the ones to teach this knowledge(which has no origin) just happen to be those who may come from an outside place from India?
AND they just happen to be of the highest classes in the society?
AND they just happen to have the Buddha(who may be an incarnate of the Supreme) come from them?
AND this great one go against them, to travel, and find another way?
AND he just happen to have STATUES(not pictures) all over the place, of someone who would look nothing like those who he comes from?
It's clear as day, the Buddha represents a knowledge that is foreign from his people or who those in his land considered Holy or great!
The reason I say he was black is because his KNOWLEDGE came from those who had origins in the Land we call Africa, and I explained why I think this in my earlier post which showed the migration of south africans to southeast asia. In other words his culture was black, not necessarily his looks, BUT if we are talking about a powerful person, you can argue he was transmuted when he became the Buddha, and turned to look like those who gave him his knowledge, southeast asians.
I think the people who followed knew this, and made sure his looks were seen as those from whom he got his knowledge from!
Remember, he became the Buddha ONCE enlightened, not when he was born!
Last edited:
GetInTheTruck
Member
Now, "getinthetruck", you are not a dumb man, you mean to tell me you don't see the trick that is being played?
So, the knowledge has no origins, yet the people who are the ones to teach this knowledge(which has no origin) just happen to be those who may come from an outside place from India?
trick?Where have the Vedas traditionally been taught outside of the subcontinent? (I'm using the word subcontinent now for accuracy, and also because the name "India" seems to bother you)
I gave you both the traditional view and the academic view, I don't know how much more balanced of an answer you were expecting.
If you are hanging your hat on the fact that the Buddha was born in present day Nepal I hope you realize that Nepal still sits on the subcontinent and that many Nepali people look like any other Indian or South Asian.
and even so, aside from Lumbini, all of the other Buddhist holy pilgrimage sites are located in present day north India
It's funny how with you, when we are discussing Africa, borders never matter and all Africans are members of one continuous cultural and racial stream no matter where they come from on that continent, but when when it comes to India we all of a sudden have to acknowledge borders. Isn't it you guys who are always screaming from the hilltops that the Middle East is really just "northeast africa?"
Well here you go bruh, Nepal is really just Northeast India
...A fact. All of the early propagators of Buddhism came from the top two Indian social classes/castes....they were all Brahmins or Kshatriyas. Ever heard of Nagarjuna? He is seen by Buddhists as the second coming of the Buddha, he lived in the 1st century CE and was born into a South Indian Brahmin family from present day Andhra Pradesh.
Buddhism is a very intellectual/heady ideology. All of the early Buddhists were monks and Buddhism was concentrated in a few monasteries. One of the reasons why Buddhism failed in India is because despite it's patronage by various kingdoms throughout the subcontinents history, it had no appeal among the "common people" who did not come from the intellectual classes and couldn't grasp it's concepts. They were quite happy worshiping their Gods and practicing their traditional family rites - quite simply, Buddhism had nothing to offer the everyday Joe Schmo in Ancient India. Besides, the Vedic religion already has it's own ascetic orders for people who wanted to pursue that type of thing.
That Buddha is seen as an incarnation of the Supreme (in this case Vishnu) despite teaching a radical philosophy is further indicative that he is a product of the same culture, not less. To contrast, this never happened with Islam, for example, because Islam IS seen as foreign to the subcontinent, despite it being present in India for over 1000 years.
...something not uncommon in ancient India. Like I told you before, please look up the Sramana movements. Śramaṇa - Wikipedia
Some went against, some didn't, bottom line is the Indian religious and philosophical scene has always been diverse, since ancient times.
Says who? Besides, the first artistic depictions of Buddha didn't come about till like a half millennium AFTER his death....and the earliest of those depictions are done in the Greek style. All of those other sculptures you guys get erections over weren't made till hundreds of years AFTER that, and only after Buddhism spread further east....and even those people today would have no problem telling you that yeah, the Buddha was originally from the land we now call India. So you telling me you know better than them?
It's funny, you really know nothing about Buddhism, or the Buddha. All you know how to do is look at a few statues, throw all historical context out of the window, disregard any and all facts that don't confirm your biases, and hold tight to ethnocentric pseudo-historical quack theories that stem out of an inferiority complex that was hoisted upon you by Europeans. Well that has nothing to do with Indians, sorry to inform you. Like I said, we are over here in reality. This thread is almost half-a-decade old and you are still operating on infantile worldviews. When do you plan on joining us?
No the reason you say he is black is because the European has taught you to value and esteem everything HE values and esteems. So if the European esteems Buddha, here you come right behind him
There is nothing resembling Buddhism that has ever been taught in Africa, most of the traditional African spiritual concepts that revolve around animism would have been considered to be heretical to Buddhist thought and practice.... but that isn't a slight towards them because I'm sure Africans couldn't care less about the Buddha let alone claiming him as one of their own. So why do you?
Sadbrownsfan
All Star
He can be whatever you want. There's even less historical proof that he was a real figure than Jesus.
GetInTheTruck
Member
They're representations of the same person I'd imagine.
But I can't compete with evidence from the junior anthropologists in this thread so I'm out
Pretty hard to argue with a statue right?
The truth shall set you free breh 
And this is why I always go back, and forth with you, you seem to not understand things for some reason. I think its because you have your mind made up already, and look for what you can argue down.
I asked where did the vedic religion come from. You tell me it came from the vedas
that's like asking a christian where does christianty comes from, and they say the Bible
I want to know where did the KNOWLEDGE come from?!
And you just showed you want to argue to be right, because you just admitted that both buddhism, and vedic religion share roots, this is why I said "self denying" came from the vedic religion. In other words it has its ROOTS in it! In simple terms, some people took the teachings to mean what they wanted, and thought this was the way to enlightenment. We saw through the Buddha that these weren't proper ways, and he gave an alternative. To me that is the whole reason for the story, which I feel he wasn't real, BUT his knowledge was very real, and it had origins, but I think it has been perverted as the people who had power changed the truth of this knowledge. And it can be seen from the beginning when we are told the was born into wealth, and so was taught the vedas, but obviously this teaching wasn't good enough for him. This is why I'm asking you where did this veda knowledge come from.
I think the people who were his followers, and knew the truth, showed this knowledge in hidden form with his statues. In other words the real knowledge comes from a different place, or is a mix of teachings. The ignorant just see a picture, but the knowing see something else. I know its hard for you to admit this because you are Indian, and probably in the religion or connected to it, since a child, but from what I see, its not as simple as you are making it.
My nikka these people are arguing against physical evidence let it go
Cornrows are hats, and besides who knows if he really existed 
